Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wasserman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wasserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for importance asa physician, and only a little for importance as an adminsitrator,, DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person is not the subject of this article's references and he has no significant coverage in other reliable sources, which would otherwise indicate he merits an article on Wikipedia. There is nothing to indicate he has contributed significantly to his field, nor is their any record of receiving notable awards (see: WP:People and WP:Academic). However, it seems he is very active advocating for geriatric health issues and increasing the number of doctors in this field throughout the U.S. as soon as possible, but apparently, this is not an indication of notability. Also, the coverage pertaining to his activism is not sufficient for a biographical article on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another article on another non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I found this and asked DGG for his analysis, I knew there enough questionability that I actually nearly PRODed it myself. Nothing at all actually convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.